Renee Pomerance

The appellant sought to challenge a conviction for unlawful confinement after an earlier Court of Appeal judgment had already addressed that conviction and directed sentencing following removal of a Kienapple stay.

The court held the prior panel had clearly turned its mind to the unlawful confinement count and purported to enter the conviction.

Because one panel of the court had already disposed of the issue, the present panel lacked jurisdiction to review it.

Any alleged error could only be pursued by seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code DNA warrant provisions authorizing seizure of bodily substances for forensic analysis.

The Court of Appeal held that the challenge was properly resolved under s. 8 of the Charter, and that if the regime satisfied s. 8 scrutiny it could not be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 on the self-incrimination theory advanced.

The court found the statutory scheme contained substantial judicial and privacy safeguards, upheld the ex parte warrant structure, and rejected the lower court's attempt to read in a notice requirement.

Fresh evidence concerning updated DNA technology undermined the basis for striking down the hair-sample provision, which was reinstated.

The cross-appeal was dismissed and the declaratory application was dismissed.